User talk:Pleclech

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Pleclech! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- MECU≈talk 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted.

Ce contenu est protégé par un copyright et ne peut être copié sans autorisation d'ElliottGann.com il est cependant librement modifiable.

[edit] Spam

Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Filmnight

[edit] Removing external links

The external links on the Bill Lipschutz page are in compliance with Wikipedia's policy... "a small number of highly relevant external links to further information can enhance an article. This guideline assists editors in identifying what is and isn't a "highly relevant" link."... both of these links are valuable to the wiki user.

The guidelines found here Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked state:

Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.

Also these links have already been approved by another wiki editor.. they've been up for months. Please explain why you removed them? Filmnight

[edit] Financials

You're doing a great job cleaning up the financial COI stuff. Keep up the good work! :) --Elonka 20:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! You're taking heat (see my comments below). Hang in there. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up and removing information

We can clearly see your purpose of cleaning up some of these articles. But for the most part, you are removing a lot of valid and highly valuable information. Please understand that a lot of people have provided great time and effort in gathering and submitting the information in most of these articles.

We all strive to make Wikipedia a useful and reliable site for information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.135.137 (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

My intention is to remove copyvio, advertizing and puffery apparently submitted by commercial sockpuppets. I'm happy to discuss this point of view with any well-intentioned editor but I will not be responding in future to unsigned posts. Pleclech 17:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

The vandalism warning was removed in accordance with the statements below. Feel free to remove this section. VivekVish 00:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A neutral passer-by's observations:

• This was a bad faith vandalism warning by an editor unhappy with Pleclech's good faith (and probably appropriate) edits. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
• The warning template -- {{Blatantvandal}} -- used is very inappropriate with a first-time vandalism incident anyway.

--A. B. ^(talk) 17:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Concur with A.B. There does indeed seem to be a content dispute, but I see no evidence of vandalism, and the warning was unwarranted. --Elonka 23:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Vandalism

Upon review, I rescind this vandalism warning. However, I respectfully suggest Plecech review WP:FAITH to ensure all comments and edits are constructive. Tone is easily lost or misconstrued in this medium. Netsumdisc 01:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A neutral passer-by's observation:

• The article in question was previously speedily deleted as spam.[9] It was immediately recreated by a single purpose editor.[10] It was expanded to become a lengthy, POV puff piece with 10 links to Fisher-related sites. Pleclech extensively worked on it to clean it up while also adding a PROD tag.[11] Netsumdisc worked on it further and removed the PROD tag.[12] Pleclech reverted those edits.[13] Netsumdisc reverted the reversion, characterizing Pleclech's edit as "vandalism".[14] He also placed the level 3 vandalism warning above.[15]
• I believe the vandalism warning above was used inappropriately to try to settle an editorial dispute. I believe both editors' edits to the article were made in good faith, whether or not all of them were the same ones I'd make.

--A. B. ^(talk) 17:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet more vandalism repaired; Pleclech had eliminated from a bio educational information, publications, work history, etc., leaving an incoherent entry.--Politophile 01:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I wish to retract the term "vandalism," after consulting the Wiki definitions. It was, however, needless (useful and important information was deleted) and sloppy, as transitions made no sense after the changes. --Politophile 04:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The two vandalism warnings above are totally bogus

See my detailed comments above; both warnings represent inappropriate use of vandalism warning templates to settle disputes.
--A. B. ^(talk) 17:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warrior of Legend

Thanks for your thoughts I really appreciate you telling me this, I might consider changing my comments to a keep but I am slightly worried I'd be being biased. --GracieLizzie 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Marcus

There are several MOS issues. There are full stops in the middle of sentences, the References and Further Reading section are not bulletpointed, and "who, in year span" doesn't make sense to me. Also, footnotes should go after punctuation when possible. CloudNine 16:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stochastic Oscillator

I cant see the link you provided for stochastic oscillator is it a good link? Mrdthree 17:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contributions

I appreciate your contributions to Kenneth Fisher. However, bear in mind, this is an article about Fisher, not Fisher Investments. Any material commentary about Fisher Investments belongs either in an article about that entity (which at this point does not exist, but maybe I'll get around to it, or someone else will), or in the section labeled Fisher Investments. I'm working to add citations and increase NPOV, and I appreciate your contributions to that end. Netsumdisc 22:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Financial article deletions

Please be more careful deleting information/links from articles about important, difficult to research financial figures such as Cohen. Those forbes links are valuable links, and are one of the best sources for further information about Cohen. And they showed the remarkable, continuous increase in Cohen's wealth, much like the steady 36% returns of SAC. And on Citadel Investment Group, why did you delete the CME article that had very rare pictures of Citadel employees? Information about hedge funds and their leaders is extremely hard to find, please be more polite if the information is well sourced. --Tvwatcher 17:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the CME link and accept it was poor judgement deleting it. The problem with many of the financial articles is that they are largely edited by commercial sockpuppets who have a lot more time to create promotional text than I have to NPOV it. Old Cohen info can be found from the current one I left by searching the Forbes site - no need for multiples. Pleclech 19:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pivot Point Calculations

You and Pivotman have recently been editing Pivot point calculations and have agreed to remove all external links as spam. In the interest of further education to the readers of this page I would like to argue for the reinstatement of the http://www.pivotpointcalculator.com/ page. Reasons: 1. It is the most complete calculator for pivot points (It allows users to select from a myriad of popular formulas and handles bond notation in 32nds and 64ths.) 2. People often learn more and understand better by doing instead of reading. Being able to enter your own figures and play with the formula and see the changing values will (hopefully) lead to a better understanding of how this is used in the real world.

There are many other pivot calculators on the web but I do not believe any of the other calculators achieve the encyclopedic objective of wikipedia as this one does. i.e. to educate the reader and facilitate a better understanding of how pivots work and are calculated. --Small island 7 April 2007

[edit] Bollinger Bands

So is a citation of "Trade Like a Hedge Fund" acceptable? I can personally concur with his research because I've done my own personal backtesting like on the Nasdaq 100 and it has shown that bollinger bands are profitable, but I realize citing me would be unnacceptable. Historical backtesting is quite objective and scientific though, but emphasis is needed on the word "historical".

I've been reading the discussion and it seems that others have been quite dissatisfied with the article. I've been thinking of adding portions to it. I agree with your comment that technical analysis is "scientifically dubious" and that presents a problem with citations. Nevertheless, I would like to include a section that discusses traders using bollinger bands for buy and sell signals--Trade Like a Hedge Fund citation. I would also like to include a section discussing the use of bollinger bands for option volatility plays, a common technique among option traders--citing the book The Volatility Course by George Fontanelis and Tom Gentile (c) 2002. I believe these practical applications of how traders have and are using the bollinger bands are appropriate, but I realize that is my opinion.

I will insert the additions to the article here for your approval before adding it to the real site.

Hi, I think the article has improved substantially. The problem with lot of the financial articles is that the results claimed, even when correct and cited, are post hoc. So, if I backcast on enough stocks, I will find some random ones in some random time periods for which any trading system will show high profitability. The problem is that in the future that system will not work (or historically for other stocks in other periods). Many people with systems to sell take advantage of selective use of data in this way (and some of them even believe themselves).

There are quite possibly brief periods of unusual market activity where specific technical methods give good results (although I haven't read any study that totally convinces me). The problem here is identifying when to get and when to get out - by the time the amateur has recognized the opportunity the large computerized traders have largely eliminated the temporary market inefficiency.

And just while I'm on the topic, the same is true of specific traders and fund managers. Any one will be able to quote some good results but literally only a handful can do this consistently. They all have a vested interest in quoting their good results and supressing their bad ones though. So I generally delete this sort of claim in articles unless it's for 10 years or so.

Happy editing ! Pleclech 11:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A very general discussion of the use of Bollinger Bands is suggested below:

Interpretation

The use of Bollinger Bands varies wildly among traders. Some traders buy when price touches the lower Bollinger Band and exit when price touches the moving average in the center of the bands. Other traders buy when price breaks above the upper Bollinger Band or sell when price falls below the lower Bollinger Band. Moreover, the use of Bollinger Bands is not confined to stock traders; option traders, most notably implied volatility traders, often sell options when Bollinger Bands are historically far apart or buy options when the Bollinger Bands are historically close together, in both instances, expecting volatility to revert back towards the average historical volatility for the stock.

The section above is very general and outlines some of the practical usages both discussed by John Bollinger and discussed in the previous two books I mentioned before.

To comment on your prior post, the Playing the Bands section of Trade Like a Hedge Fund is over 5.5 years of data (not enough for your arbitrarily determined 10-yr span but nevertheless relatively significant), using the Nasdaq 100 stocks (sample size of approx 98 which is generally accepted by statisticians as a healthy sample size; also the fact that he didn't pick and choose which stocks to incorporate but used a widely referenced index puts doubt on any selection bias). There were 3,352 examples of the trade so historical profitability easily is statistically significant; also he used objective predefined entry and exit rules (status quo 20-period, 2 standard deviation Bollinger Band). Put simply, past performance is not indicative of future performance.

Looks perfectly factual to me - I can't see why anyone would object.

My 10 years is completely arbitrary. There's no selection bias in the above and it seems there's no need for Bonferroni type corrections so it looks valid - I'll try and find some time to read it. Pleclech 04:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(NEW SECTION) I'm curious about what is going on with the bollinger band article. All of a sudden a quote appears of an opinion, supposedly by John Bollinger. I thought encyclopedia content didn't use the word "I" or "For me". All of a sudden the section I wrote that generally explained how the bollinger bands were used, citing "Trade Like a Hedge Fund" the "Volatility Course" etc. is replaced by some opinion. He/She deleted some objective cited examples of using bollinger bands and replaced it with philosophy.

[edit] MACD

I'm not familiar with what you mean by the word "uncritical". An explanation of your definition would be appreciated.

Thanks Tradermatt

"lacking in judgement" and "not in accordance with critical methods" capture it fairly well. If I remember, the sites had something to sell and salespeople don't knock their products. But encyclopedias should critically evaluate. Pleclech 18:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Each of the sites that you unilaterally deleted added further detail about interpreting the MACD. For example, the picture of the MACD I added to this site was appropriate because it visually explained the first section of the MACD calculation. The article itself, that is "critical" in your judgement, discusses how the MACD is interpreted. The OnlineTradingConcepts website is both relavent to the article MACD and contains pictures of the moving average crossover discussed in this article as well as a finer critique of the method whose detail would probably be innapropriate for this article. The link to the OnlineTradingConcepts site also contains deeper information and pictures on the MACD histogram, also discussed on this MACD wiki site that is "critical" in your opinion.

And as we have discussed prior, technical analysis does not lend itself very well to scientific scrutiny. However, as a subject, technical analysis is a subject with a long history of use by traders throughout the world. My interpretation of your comments is that you see the subject as scientific. I propose a more historical approach. The MACD is a tool that has been used and written about for years with generally accepted interpretations. Each of the external links discusses these generally accepted interpretations in further detail. And if you actually did personal research on the topic of the MACD, you would see that these websites are right in line with historical interpretations of the MACD and are therefore relavent.

Before the next statement is said, know that I realize that most wikipedia users are passerby's and don't contribute or edit. Nevertheless, years and countless tens of thousands of wikipedia users have read this article with the external links left intact. The assumption is that if they found anything objectionable or irrelavent to the MACD topic they would have deleted the links. But by intepreting their actions, it seems that the links were very relavent and added to their wikipedia experience. It is my interpretation that you want to edit the article to have a scientific method, rigorously researched topic for MACD, when MACD is inherently not scientific. Sure you can backtest historical data for moving average crossovers, but other aspects of the MACD like the divergences discussed in your critical article are inherently not objective, but rather are a subjective and more an art form, subject to user skill.

The external links are relavent and add to the wikipedia user experience and should be reinstated.

Let's call a spade a spade. You appear to me to be a single purpose editor who edits primarily to promote OnlineTradingConcepts. That's inappropriate, heading towards spam. Financial articles are plagued by sockpuppets and spammers - left to their own devices they will make the articles useless for everyone. The Tragedy of the Commons as they say in Economics, probably inevitable but let's pretend for now. Pleclech 20:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What cows eating grass has to do with me providing deeper information on a topic is beyond me. Your comment about financial articles being plagued by sockpuppets and spammers is a probabalistic heuristic you yourself apply to editing articles. Furthermore, "they will make the articles useless for everyone" is a generalization and speculative, adding nothing to the logic of deleting highly relevent and informative links.

In my educated opinion, a editor of an article should be well versed in the subject matter, knowing, rather than guessing what aspects of the MACD article is "lacking in judgement" and "not in accordance with critical methods" and which links supply errant information. Just because your heuristics flagged the links as questionable, doesn't make the actual information contained in the links false, uncritical, or irrelevant. Simply stated, you are a self-appointed screener of knowledge. The ironic part is your lack of knowledge on the topics you are screening. I fail to see how a judge of correct and incorrect knowledge can judge correct and incorrect knowledge when they don't know what the correct knowledge of a subject is.

Furthermore, I fail to see how I personally am making the articles useless for anyone. I have provided very informational encyclopedic content and pictures adding to the user experience. The links you unilaterally decided to delete are informational and add to the user experience as well.

In addition to the fact that tens of thousands of users have viewed, clicked, and have found value in the external links, coupled with the fact that you have let the links exist for many months prior, shows a disparity between your views and the wikipedia viewers of this topic and shows extreme inconsistancy in your application of reasoning for deleting the links.

I appreciate your concern for protecting "the commons" from abuse, but the links to this article are very applicable and add to wikipedia users' experiences. This internet, community encyclopedia, after all is to provide relevant, accurate information to the users and the article and external links deliver such information.

Let's compromize by leaving the original links. We can then see if any established editor feels the OnlineTradingConcepts site adds value.

I didn't say you personally were making the articles useless for anyone, the pictures you added do contribute to the user experience. And I appreciate your editing the OnlineTradingConcepts site name off them.

Have a look at the earlier state of some of the articles I've edited and their more recent state. If you feel they have disimproved, then revert them to their original state. I don't expect you will! Pleclech 22:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You have an interesting idea of a comprimise. If a passerby is unaware of the OnlineTradingConcepts site, then how can they "feel the site adds value". Leaving the link and letting wikipedia users click on the link allows wiki users and "editors" to "feel" and determine if the site adds value. If per chance they feel that it is totally irrelavent, which is questionable how they objectively could see irrelavence both based on the subject matter: MACD, its likeness to the arbitrarily selected links you left, and its unique additions and fully relavent explainations further explaining sentences in the wikipedia MACD article, then they could delete it. Hopefully you see the ironic nature of your "comprimise": it's like telling a book critic to critique a book, but they are not allowed to read the book. Interesting logic used, I think you'll agree.

I'm glad you recognize that the pictures supplied do add very much to the wikipedia user experience; I'll take that as a compliment. I look forward to when our comments will end with cordial endings such as your "Happy editing" and my "Thanks".

Thanks. Tradermatt

The "compromize" proposed was somewhat tongue in cheek. If people are unaware of the OnlineTradingConcepts site, then it probably shouldn't be on Wiki which, like Life itself, rewards the already famous with more recognition but ignores deserving unknowns.

I have no objection to you restoring the link but I don't think any of the links add much to the article (which itself doesn't add much to Human Knowledge). But then what do I know about the subject :-) Pleclech 12:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image removal

What isthe reson for you removing the image on the Meg Whitman article.--212.158.201.11 12:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)